If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Not news: Catholic hospital chain beats malpractice suit. Irony: By declaring that fetuses aren't people   (rawstory.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting, hospital system, malpractice suit, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, St. Thomas, fetus, sanctity of life, Kentucky Attorney General, malpractice  
•       •       •

9230 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 6:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-24 06:08:31 PM
10 votes:
Well, they're correct. Hypocritical, but correct.
2013-01-24 06:15:59 PM
7 votes:
I sincerely hope that comes back to bite them on the ass
2013-01-24 06:56:13 PM
6 votes:

nekom: I find it hard to be outraged by this.  Just because they don't agree with the law, that's no reason not to use it to one's advantage in court.


Outraged? No. But it does show a certain lack of conviction. If you believe in something, you should believe in it even when it doesn't suit your needs. When you disregard your beliefs just because it is now working against you, that's hypocritical. Smart business sense, but hypocritical.
2013-01-24 06:19:43 PM
6 votes:
Don't worry: by the time the next a 14-year-old rape victim comes in wanting Plan B, not only will a fetus be a person again, a potential zygote will be too.
2013-01-24 07:09:44 PM
5 votes:

nekom: I find it hard to be outraged by this.  Just because they don't agree with the law, that's no reason not to use it to one's advantage in court.


Exactly! It's not like the church holds itself up as a moral authority or anything.
2013-01-24 09:28:45 PM
4 votes:

JadedRaverLA: kronicfeld: fusillade762: Hypocritical

You can simultaneously believe in the proper application of existing law and believe that the same existing law should be changed in some way. That is not hypocritical.

Well, in the Catholic Church's case, they very much advocate violating the law (not providing contraception coverage, etc.), as their position on the issue is essentially that God's law specifically trumps man's law on the issue of life.

That said, unless the Catholic Church is actually running the medical malpractice insurance company (which there's no indication of), then its really not up to them to determine the defense in this case. The insurance company, who would be paying out any judgment, supplies the attorneys and mounts the defense. The insured party does NOT get final say in their own defense in these cases.


So, a third party malpractice insurance is able to disregard a Catholic teaching in favor of industry and legal standards, but if a third party health insurance does the same, its socialism and evil and a violation of the Churches 1st amendment right. Got it.
2013-01-24 07:58:17 PM
4 votes:

TheMysteriousStranger: The legal definition of person (which counts in a court of law) and the Catholic theology definition of a person (which count only among Catholics in their private beliefs) are two different things.


Except, you know, for the whole "trying to make those two equal" thing. Or the "refusing to obey the law when it conflicts with our private beliefs" thing.
2013-01-24 07:03:02 PM
4 votes:
A chain of Catholic Hospitals has beaten a malpractice lawsuit by saying that fetuses are not equivalent to human lives. According to the Colorado Independent, in the death of a 31-year-old woman carrying twin fetuses, Catholic Health Initiatives' attorneys argued that in cases of wrongful death, the term "person" only applies to individuals born alive, and not to those who die in utero.

Lori Stodghill was seven months pregnant with twin boys on the day she died. The Independent reported that on New Year's Day 2006 in Cañon City, Colorado, Stodghill was admitted to the Emergency Room at St. Thomas More Hospital complaining of nausea, vomiting and shortness of breath. She lost consciousness as she was being wheeled into an exam room and ER staff were unable to resuscitate her.


You know, i thought that the time was here for me, when i couldn't hate on lawyers and the church anymore than i do now. But i guess i was wrong. It must be nice to point down at the masses and say shiat like "you cant use birth control..because thats MURDER OF A LIVING BEING OF GOD" , but then have your hack lawyers turn around and say that a seven month baby is a fetus. To avoid paying money in a lawsuit. You hide pedophiles that work in the church by moving them around and covering up the incidents, and paying off the victims, telling them to shut up, here is your cash. You tell people that they shouldn't use birth control, because thats a SIN, even when it prevents STD'S that cause death, and unwanted births, esp to those who cant afford another kid. You would rather see them live in abject poverty with nothing, rather than see them use common sense to control the number of kids they have. If they DO use it, you excommunicate them, and in your mind, this sends them to hell automatically. Nice. fark you too. You point fingers at homosexuals and other people who don't share your dogma and buy your bullshiat, and say they are heathens and cannot attend your church, as they are hellbound sinners. So it seems to me, that you change the rules for your own best interest. How can you say on one hand, NO ABORTIONS, and then have your scumbag hacks say that 2 7 month old babies are "fetuses" and not people yet. facepalms. Nice turn around to save your ass money. And that is what this whole thing is about isn't it? Cash, power, and control. i would rather be drug behind a truck naked over gravel before i set foot in your money grubbing idolatrous buildings. Oh, and btw, your "holy" pope is no more holy than the end of my big toe. "God" doesn't talk to him, he is just a man, spewing out the same draconian dogma that they have been vomiting on the people for centuries, and if you are stupid enough to buy his bullshiat, and be controlled by the church, you are a sad example of yet another "sheep" that is incapable of thinking for yourself, and would rather be led around by your wallet than have to think at all about what you believe, or who you're following. fark you church, you're all full of shiat, and out for NO 1.

/end rant.
2013-01-24 06:47:14 PM
4 votes:
Ahhhh... If there is one thing I just LOVE, it's warm smell of burning hypocrisy in the evening. "Life begins at conception! Or even before conception, so you can't even use birth control! A fetus is ALIVE and a PERSON! Oh, unless it's going to cost us money. Then, you know... fark them. Fetus isn't alive."

So... so beautiful.
2013-01-24 06:39:54 PM
4 votes:
The legal definition of person (which counts in a court of law) and the Catholic theology definition of a person (which count only among Catholics in their private beliefs) are two different things.

So subby, look up equivocation fallacy.

/Yes the human race would be better off without this organization, but if I would point this out if it was convenient for my side, I must do the same when it is not.
2013-01-24 06:38:02 PM
4 votes:

fusillade762: Hypocritical


You can simultaneously believe in the proper application of existing law and believe that the same existing law should be changed in some way. That is not hypocritical.
2013-01-24 06:26:02 PM
4 votes:
Meh, I'll never serve on a jury.  Sounds like the lady died of a pulmonary embolism, the twins died because mom died (while being transported to a treatment room) , the ob doc wasn't around and out of pocket, butthe lady was already in an ER. The ob doc couldn't have gotten there fast enough to do anything anyway. Why is the ob doc at fault.  At some point the ER docs should take command of the situation, and the kids may not have made it anyway.  It's tragic, but sometimes that's not someone's fault.
2013-01-24 06:37:28 PM
3 votes:

basemetal: Meh, I'll never serve on a jury.  Sounds like the lady died of a pulmonary embolism, the twins died because mom died (while being transported to a treatment room) , the ob doc wasn't around and out of pocket, butthe lady was already in an ER. The ob doc couldn't have gotten there fast enough to do anything anyway. Why is the ob doc at fault.  At some point the ER docs should take command of the situation, and the kids may not have made it anyway.  It's tragic, but sometimes that's not someone's fault.


I'll never serve on a jury because I'll question jury instructions.  Prosecution never likes a jury that thinks for itself.
2013-01-24 09:03:45 PM
2 votes:

Smgth: Ok, few hate religion more then I, HOWEVER, this is not "The Catholic Church". This a 'Catholic Organization', who, like any business, will drop an pretense towards ethics like a blazing hot fetus the SECOND it might become inconvenient (read cost money).

/The Catholic Church would take AT LEAST several more seconds to throw unborn babies into the fire if it became expedient.
//They certainly had no problem consigning unbaptized babies to hell for hundreds and hundreds of years until THAT wasn't gaining them points with enough relig-idiots.


So... as a 'Catholic Organization' and not the church itself, they should have no problem allowing for hormonal birth control to be covered under their employee insurance benefits. Cool.
2013-01-24 08:23:18 PM
2 votes:

Crocoduck: I despise the Church as much as the next guy, but I don't see how one could sue in this case. The argument of person or no person aside, this is just an unfortunate death. The Church is not at fault here.


Of course not. If they'd actually said that, I'd have sympathy for them. But  this is disgusting, since it's the same hospital chain refusing to dispense even birth control meds. When religion starts screwing people over, the law should come down on it like a farking hammer.
2013-01-24 08:18:33 PM
2 votes:

nekom: I find it hard to be outraged by this.  Just because they don't agree with the law, that's no reason not to use it to one's advantage in court.


That's what a lawyer would say. But the church should have considered what its enemies can do with this precedent.
2013-01-24 08:14:30 PM
2 votes:
A copy of this article should be posted in front of abortion clinics for all of the protesters to read. Maybe, if they still have one or two free thinking brain cells left it will give them something to think about.
2013-01-24 08:06:28 PM
2 votes:
So, now that these statements by church lawyers and doctors are on record, can they be used in future proceedings as precedent and witness testimony when fighting for Roe v. Wade type cases?
2013-01-24 07:23:34 PM
2 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com

They see me pope-in', they hatin'
2013-01-24 07:08:58 PM
2 votes:

Mutt Farkinov: TheMysteriousStranger: The legal definition of person (which counts in a court of law) and the Catholic theology definition of a person (which count only among Catholics in their private beliefs) are two different things.

So subby, look up equivocation fallacy.

/Yes the human race would be better off without this organization, but if I would point this out if it was convenient for my side, I must do the same when it is not.

So much this. Legal precedent is already set and the hospital's lawyer motioned based on it. It's not like the hospital held a press conference to announce fetuses are no longer people. But hey, whatever gets you a green light, right, Subs?



can the lawyer file a motion like this without explaining it to his/her client and/or against the client's wishes? can the lawyer not be requested by their client to pursue another avenue of defense which may have been less effective but that avoided having to use one that is so grossly counter to catholic teaching? was there a law keeping the church from trying settling the case in order to avoid making such a motion (maybe they did try though, or the insurance company would prevent that one.).

we don't have all the facts here. but it seems that when the law was supposed to be about providing birth control to women, the catholic church threatened all manner of way to stop that, including not complying with the law in a full blown campaign of civil disobedience.  and yet it seems that here they may have too easily adhered to a legal precedent they not only consider immoral but also soul damming because it was convenient.
2013-01-24 07:04:51 PM
2 votes:
NONONO see the lawsuit was going to COST them money.

Protesting against abortions MAKES them money.

See the difference there?
2013-01-24 07:03:14 PM
2 votes:

Azlefty: Earguy: I wonder if they even mulled this over before running with it.

They did, it is called a cost benefit analysis


All of these massive faith based groups have board members... they may have started off as true believers but at the end of the day... it's a business.  And you make business decisions on financial risk.

I swear, if abortions costs $50,000 and you could bill it all to the government... every catholic hospital would be signing up for it.
2013-01-24 07:02:12 PM
2 votes:
Worst. Hypocrisy. Ever.

I am pro-choice. I admit to wavering a bit because of the problem of gender disparities caused by sex-selective abortions in some countries and the fact that I have a mild form of Turner's Syndrome, a condition that is often aborted for these days, although there are no cognitive problems associated with it (the main markers are ovarian failure and short stature, i.e. I'm short and can't have kids).

However, I realize that gender selective abortions are not a problem in the United States and, as to the Turner's, I think it is best left between the mother and her Doctor. There are over 7 billion humans on this planet. I'd rather people just got "fixed" rather than abort but contraceptive failure, rape, incest, and severe birth defects happen. Women in those situations should be able to abort, if that is their decision.

I heard a quote by Robert Ingersoll on NPR (interview with Susan Jacoby, author of a new biography of him, The Great Agnostic) about how women are not truly free until they have the power to determine how many children they will have. The mother of the (prospective) child is already here, a person with a life. She takes precedent over the maybe-life.

/end soapbox
2013-01-24 06:47:56 PM
2 votes:

TheMysteriousStranger: The legal definition of person (which counts in a court of law) and the Catholic theology definition of a person (which count only among Catholics in their private beliefs) are two different things.

So subby, look up equivocation fallacy.

/Yes the human race would be better off without this organization, but if I would point this out if it was convenient for my side, I must do the same when it is not.


So much this. Legal precedent is already set and the hospital's lawyer motioned based on it. It's not like the hospital held a press conference to announce fetuses are no longer people. But hey, whatever gets you a green light, right, Subs?
2013-01-24 06:45:54 PM
2 votes:
I despise the Church as much as the next guy, but I don't see how one could sue in this case. The argument of person or no person aside, this is just an unfortunate death. The Church is not at fault here.
2013-01-24 06:37:19 PM
2 votes:
Vile, hypocritical, shameful, and contrary to the "Good News" by which they claim to live--the Catholic Church is, hopefully, in its death throes.
2013-01-24 11:38:46 PM
1 votes:

TheMysteriousStranger: The legal definition of person (which counts in a court of law) and the Catholic theology definition of a person (which count only among Catholics in their private beliefs) are two different things.

So subby, look up equivocation fallacy.

/Yes the human race would be better off without this organization, but if I would point this out if it was convenient for my side, I must do the same when it is not.


Considering that these are the same assholes who refuse to provide emergency contraception based on their theological definition of a person, there's no fallacy here.
2013-01-24 11:24:34 PM
1 votes:

arentol: The hospital did absolutely nothing hypocritical, and, as a matter of fact, if the State had not agreed with them then the State would be the hypocrite.

The hospital merely pointed out that the State does not consider the fetuses to be persons until born. The Catholic church TRIED to make the state recognize fetuses as people, but the State said no. All the hospital is doing here is saying "We tried to get you to recognize fetuses under the law as the people we both know they are, but you refused. So screw you. You made your bed, now lie in it... and stop this lawsuit against us."

That is not hypocrisy, that is sitting back and watching someone being hoisted by their own petard.


A) It absolutely is hypocrisy. No one put a gun to the hospital's head and forced them to go forward on a legal defense which undercuts what is supposedly one of their core beliefs. They could have decided that it was dishonest to take advantage of a legal provision which, if their principles won out, would be anathema. They didn't. They wanted to save a few hundred thousand dollars in damages.

B) The State? You mean a judge? There is no State in this proceeding. It's not a prosecution, it's a wrongful death suit.
2013-01-24 10:27:41 PM
1 votes:
To every Catholic who has donated money, camped out at Planned Parenthood and shouted down whores, marched on Washington, alienated the people who loved you, handed out fliers in the rain, murdered doctors and gone to prison for your faith, this is what you sacrificed for. A cynical lie by fat, rich old farks who like making you dance for them because they claim to be Christ's middlemen.
2013-01-24 09:33:25 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: I'm not very strong in this area of Germany during World War II, but during the later years weren't ALL teenage boys expected to, if not forced to be part of the Hitler Youth to defend the fatherland against the Allies?


Some avoided joining in protest. One of them as pope would have been preferable.

They probably didn't make it though. Hard to get past an entire nation of folks like Ratzinger who proudly wore the swastika when it served them.
2013-01-24 09:29:14 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Zoomaster: [www.arkcode.com image 534x422]

What would you expect from an evil organization with a Nazi as its leader?

I'm not very strong in this area of Germany during World War II, but during the later years weren't ALL teenage boys expected to, if not forced to be part of the Hitler Youth to defend the fatherland against the Allies?


=======================

There is reason to think that Ratzinger has been less than fully candid about his past.
During much of the Nazi era, Joseph Ratzinger lived with his family in Traunstein, Germany, a small and staunchly Catholic town between Munich and Salzburg. During World War I there was a prisoner-of-war camp located here where, ironically, Adolf Hitler worked between December 1918 and March 1919. The town is located near the region of Austria which Hitler came from.
Resistance to the Nazis was dangerous and difficult, but not impossible. Elizabeth Lohner, a Traunstein resident whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, has been quoted as saying, "It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others. The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice."
A few hundred yards away from the Ratzingers' house, a family hid Hans Braxenthaler, a local resistance fighter who shot himself rather than be captured again. The SS regularly searched local homes for resistance members, so the Ratzingers couldn't have not known about resistance efforts.
Although many German Catholic leaders were willing to work with the Nazis, many individual Catholics and Catholic priests resisted as best they could, refusing to cooperate with a political regime they regarded as anti-Catholic at best and the embodiment of evil at worst.
Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941. Millions of Germans were in a position similar to that of Joseph Ratzinger and his family, so why spend so much time focusing on him? Because he is no longer merely Joseph Ratzinger, or even a Catholic Cardinal - he is now Pope Benedict XVI. None of the other Germans who joined the Hitler Youth, were part of the military in Nazi Germany, lived near a concentration camp, and watched Jews being rounded up for death camps has ever become pope.
The pope is supposed to be the successor of Peter, leader of the Christian Church, and symbol of unity for all Christendom. The past actions - or inactions - of such a person matter a great deal if anyone is going to treat him as any sort of moral authority.
Ratzinger's recollections of his youth in Nazi Germany makes it seem as though all the problems, violence, and hatred existed outside his local community. There is no recognition that resistance to the Nazis existed - or was needed - just outside his door.
2013-01-24 08:50:21 PM
1 votes:

Zoomaster: [www.arkcode.com image 534x422]

What would you expect from an evil organization with a Nazi as its leader?


I'm not very strong in this area of Germany during World War II, but during the later years weren't ALL teenage boys expected to, if not forced to be part of the Hitler Youth to defend the fatherland against the Allies?
2013-01-24 08:44:47 PM
1 votes:

Zoomaster: [www.arkcode.com image 534x422]

What would you expect from an evil organization with a Nazi as its leader?


Solution: No Germans who were teenagers during the Nazi regime shall be allowed to lead an organization in their life time.
2013-01-24 08:42:10 PM
1 votes:
Faith is well and good, as long as it doesn't cost us money.
2013-01-24 08:24:38 PM
1 votes:
www.arkcode.com

What would you expect from an evil organization with a Nazi as its leader?
2013-01-24 07:53:39 PM
1 votes:
The hospital should have followed the code of ethics from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawsuits be damned, and without hearing from the obstetrician. None of the Catholic institutions involved showed any serious motivation towards protecting unborn persons, going so far as to deny care to seven month old fetuses for fear of a lawsuit. However, they were so highly motivated to protect themselves and their own assets that they engaged in open hypocrisy in order to actually *avoid* valuing those lives.
2013-01-24 07:47:23 PM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: Of course, the same could be said for the opposite perspective: the Catholic hospital saying, "Well, law, if you're not going to recognize this thing we believe in, then you are just going to have to live with the result coming out against you."


That doesn't sound like moral or religious conviction. It sounds like financial expedience. How about this one: "Well, of course we're against the murder of millions of innocent lives, but hey, you Nazi's are the law around here...so..."
2013-01-24 07:29:43 PM
1 votes:
Gee, it's almost like their primary concern is money and not the "sanctity of life". It's like they're aware of numbers five or something.
2013-01-24 07:28:54 PM
1 votes:

kbronsito: Mutt Farkinov: TheMysteriousStranger: The legal definition of person (which counts in a court of law) and the Catholic theology definition of a person (which count only among Catholics in their private beliefs) are two different things.

So subby, look up equivocation fallacy.

/Yes the human race would be better off without this organization, but if I would point this out if it was convenient for my side, I must do the same when it is not.

So much this. Legal precedent is already set and the hospital's lawyer motioned based on it. It's not like the hospital held a press conference to announce fetuses are no longer people. But hey, whatever gets you a green light, right, Subs?


can the lawyer file a motion like this without explaining it to his/her client and/or against the client's wishes? can the lawyer not be requested by their client to pursue another avenue of defense which may have been less effective but that avoided having to use one that is so grossly counter to catholic teaching? was there a law keeping the church from trying settling the case in order to avoid making such a motion (maybe they did try though, or the insurance company would prevent that one.).

we don't have all the facts here. but it seems that when the law was supposed to be about providing birth control to women, the catholic church threatened all manner of way to stop that, including not complying with the law in a full blown campaign of civil disobedience.  and yet it seems that here they may have too easily adhered to a legal precedent they not only consider immoral but also soul damming because it was convenient.


I admit ignorance of this particular hospital's admin system, but I would posit that they have a lawyer on retainer or staff who doesn't have the archbishop looking over his/her shoulder, but rather is expected to represent the interests of the hospital. Whatever the case, subby's article uses what is ostensibly the defense lawyer's quote, then says it was the Catholic church's idea. It's a biased, trolling article and a biased, trolling headline that mod bait for an easy green light.

/not catholic
//not like this is the first time trolling headline was approved
///subby should have also put "hot pics of mom" in he headline.
2013-01-24 07:24:44 PM
1 votes:

TheMysteriousStranger: The legal definition of person (which counts in a court of law) and the Catholic theology definition of a person (which count only among Catholics in their private beliefs) are two different things.

So subby, look up equivocation fallacy.

/Yes the human race would be better off without this organization, but if I would point this out if it was convenient for my side, I must do the same when it is not.


the Church perfected beer making, wine making, and even developed the champagne cork which made it possible to bottle that stuff. They also preserved a significant portion of Classical knowledge. They also gave us catholic school girl uniforms. They really haven't done much for us lately... but not many institutions have contributed that much to mankind.
2013-01-24 07:19:32 PM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: fusillade762: Hypocritical

You can simultaneously believe in the proper application of existing law and believe that the same existing law should be changed in some way. That is not hypocritical.


Well, in the Catholic Church's case, they very much advocate violating the law (not providing contraception coverage, etc.), as their position on the issue is essentially that God's law specifically trumps man's law on the issue of life.

That said, unless the Catholic Church is actually running the medical malpractice insurance company (which there's no indication of), then its really not up to them to determine the defense in this case. The insurance company, who would be paying out any judgment, supplies the attorneys and mounts the defense. The insured party does NOT get final say in their own defense in these cases.
2013-01-24 07:18:05 PM
1 votes:
Their hypocrisy truly knows no bounds
cdn.fd.uproxx.com
Approves
2013-01-24 07:12:42 PM
1 votes:

netizencain: I swear, if abortions costs $50,000 and you could bill it all to the government... every catholic hospital would be signing up for it.


No doubt Custom Italian duds and Pope Mobiles are expensive
2013-01-24 07:01:46 PM
1 votes:

gameshowhost: GAT_00: So, who wants to get a faux religious group up and running protesting them?  You could rake in a whole lot of money from stupid people "running" it.

I hear it's more profitable to simply get one up and running, without protesting another.


This.

My wife won't let me start a religion even when I point out how ridiculously profitable Scientology is.

"You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard
2013-01-24 07:00:41 PM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: GAT_00: Prosecution never likes a jury that thinks for itself.

That's a fairly naive statement. In some jurisdictions, including mine, juries are specifically instructed not to teach their verdict based on sympathy, bias, etc. Prosecutors love jurors who assume that a defendant was charged with a crime because he is probably guilty, and that if he looks like a bad dude then he probably is. "Thinking for itself" cuts both ways.


I don't think any prosecutor wants a juror who would start a call for nullification.
2013-01-24 07:00:29 PM
1 votes:

Earguy: I wonder if they even mulled this over before running with it.


They did, it is called a cost benefit analysis
2013-01-24 06:43:07 PM
1 votes:
There is an Ironic tag, Subby. Just so you know.
2013-01-24 06:42:38 PM
1 votes:
Hard-on for money > Hard-on for kids > Hard-on for fetuses
2013-01-24 06:35:53 PM
1 votes:
Meh. Call me when those hypocrites say that gay sex and child molestation is a sin when priests do it.
2013-01-24 06:35:09 PM
1 votes:
This will end...poorly.
2013-01-24 06:32:52 PM
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I sincerely hope that comes back to bite them on the ass


What an inhuman fetus with a biteable ass might look like:
psychexfutureheart.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-24 06:21:23 PM
1 votes:
So, who wants to get a faux religious group up and running protesting them?  You could rake in a whole lot of money from stupid people "running" it.
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report